[afnog] SRv6

[Andrew Alston]

Mark,

Thing is – you don’t need SRv6 to get rid of v4 – you can use v6 with SR using standard label stack – the only difference with SRv6 and SR is that your hops are embedded inside the v6 extension headers rather than using standard label stack for the same thing.  SR without SRv6 is entirely address family agnostic, hence the question

Andrew


From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 22:59
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>, "afnog at afnog.org" <afnog at afnog.org>
Subject: Re: [afnog] SRv6


On 12/Dec/18 08:20, Andrew Alston wrote:
Hi Guys,

I was wondering – can anyone here tell me what they see as the use case for SRv6 – I’ve debated this issue at quite some length recently – and so far – not a single person has been able to show me a single use case for this – and hence – I’m wondering what I’m missing, and Im really curious to know if anyone has played with this – and sees any reason for its existence.

Generally, I still struggle to find a use-case for SR, period :-).

I suppose SRv6 would be for those that want to totally do away with any IPv4 in their network, and just have it as an overlay atop the transport system of choice (SR, in that case).

Mark.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20181212/195ea622/attachment.html>